Austin Journal of Musculoskeletal Disorders

Citation: Karaca S, Akpolat AO, Oztermeli A, Bildik C, Erdem MN and Saygi B. Comparison of Local versus
General Anaesthesia for Carpal Tunnel Release. Austin J Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 4(2): 1043.
Austin J Musculoskelet Disord - Volume 4 Issue 2 - 2017
ISSN : 2381-8948 | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
Karaca et al. © All rights are reserved
Austin Journal of Musculoskeletal Disorders
Open Access
Abstract
Purpose: Our aim was to compare the clinical results of patients had carpal
tunnel release surgery under local anesthesia and general anesthesia.
Methods: We studied visual analogue scores and visual analogue patient
satisfaction scores of 148 patients who underwent carpal tunnel release
surgery. 100 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in this study.
There were 12 males 38 females in general anesthesia group and 15 males 35
females in local anesthesia group. The mean age in general anesthesia group
was 51.4 (31-78) and in local anesthesia group was 54.4 (28-81).
Results: Visual analogue scores in general anesthesia group was 7.9
and decreased 2.9 postoperatively in local anesthesia group visual analogue
score was 8.0 and decreased 2.9 postoperatively (p > 0.05). Visual analogue
patient satisfaction score was 7.6 in general anesthesia group and 7.9 in local
anesthesia group (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: A high percentage of patients reported high levels of
satisfaction, excellent results and improvements in their quality of life in both
group. As the VAS and VAPSS were considered the primary outcome measure,
the results of our study show that the type of anaesthesia has no effect on the
results of surgical treatment of CTS. There were no significant differences in
clinical results between 2 groups.
Keywords: Carpal tunnel syndrome; Open surgery; Carpal tunnel release;
Local anesthesia; General anesthesia
Introduction
Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common neuropathy,
affecting the median nerve as it passes under the transverse carpal
ligament [1]. CTS is described as a nerve compression at the wrist
plane, CTS causes numbness and tingling in the hand and fingers.
Sir James Paget defined CTS first in1853, and since then, in the 1950s
a scientist named George Phalen popularized the diagnosis and
treatment of CTS [2-4]. The aetiology of CTS is considered idiopathic
in most cases but it is still controversial [5,6].
Conservative treatment consists of splinting or corticosteroid
injections and surgical release of the carpal tunnel are the treatment
method options [7-9]. There has been continued debate over the
optimal management of this disease. Decision of the surgeon has
consistently varied [10,11].
Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is known as an effective treatment
for idiopathic CTS. CTR is performed with a variety of techniques
such as endoscopic (ECTR) or open (OCTR). Literature has not got
consensus on the superiority of any one technique to another [10-12].
Local anaesthesia (LA) and general anaesthesia (GA) are
anaesthetic options on the surgical treatment of CTS. LA is safe, fast,
and effective, but the injection could be painful [13,14]. In one recent
series, about 10% of patients indicated that they would prefer another
form of anaesthesia [15]. When applying the local anaesthetics under
the skin patient could have pain and pain could make the patient
Research Article
Comparison of Local versus General Anaesthesia for
Carpal Tunnel Release
Karaca S1
*, Akpolat AO1
, Oztermeli A1
, Bildik
C1
, Erdem MN2
and Saygi B1
1
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Fatih
Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, Turkey
2
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Hisar
Intercontinental Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
*Corresponding author: Sinan Karaca, Fatih Sultan
Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, Orthopaedics
and Traumatology Clinic, 34856 Ataşehir/İstanbul,
Turkey
Received: December 11, 2016; Accepted: March 09,
2017; Published: March 15, 2017
uncomfortable. Also from the surgeon side discomfort of the patient
could affect the surgical procedure and sometimes visualization of
the surgical area could be difficult due to oedema caused by local
anaesthetics. These problems in surgical procedure could affect
the clinical results of the surgery. Sedation or GA could make the
procedure more comfortable [16].
The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of
the anaesthetic methods on the patient’s clinical results. To our
knowledge this is the first report that compares the clinical outcomes
of the open CTR with GA or LA.
Materials and Methods
Computerized patient database was searched to identify all
patients with CTS who underwent open CTR between January 2009
and January 2013 at Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research
Hospital. The year 2013 was selected to ensure a minimum one-year
follow-up. At the result of the search total of 148 patients (169 CTS
hands) were found.
Of the 148 patients (169 CTS hands) 21 patients were operated
bilaterally and excluded from study. Of the 127 patient operated
monolaterally. One patient died from another reason and 14 patients
was not available and excluded from the study. Fifty five patients
operated with GA (group A) and 57 patients with LA (group B). The
last available 50 monolateral patient operated by the same surgeon for
each group included to the study (Figure 1).

Austin J Musculoskelet Disord 4(2): id1043 (2017) - Page - 02
Karaca S Austin Publishing Group
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
The CTS diagnosis was made by clinical examination and
electromyography in all patients. Patients unresponsive to
conservative treatment with wrist brace and anti-inflammatory
medicine had CTR surgery. Patients with at least 12 months follow-
up were included in the study. To assess the adequacy of treatment,
we asked the patients to identify any difference between preoperative
and postoperative symptoms on a visual analogue scale (VAS).
Preoperatively 0 points indicated no pain and 10 were worst pain and
postoperatively 0 points indicated absolute regression of symptoms
and 10 points indicated lack of any effect of surgical treatment. Visual
Analog Patient Satisfaction Scale (VAPSS) was used for comparison
the level of patient satisfactory from surgical procedure. 10 point
shows the highest satisfaction and 0 is the lowest or no satisfaction.
The surgeries were performed by the same surgeon using the
same technique of OCTR. Before the surgery a standard antibiotic
was used including 1gr cefazolin intravenously. LA with bupivacaine
hydrochloride (5mg/mL) and epinephrine (5μg/mL) was used
for anaesthesia in all cases in group B. The maximum dose never
exceeded 5mL.
The length of the skin incision beginning from distal wrist
crease and extending distally about 2 to 2.5cm over the carpal canal
was made. Bipolar diathermy was used for haemostasis. The flexor
retinaculum was incised until the distal end with scissors and
epineural neurolysis was performed when deemed appropriate. Skin
was closed using single sutures. A neutral-position wrist splint was
used for postoperative immobilization for two weeks. We attempted
to contact patients by searching medical records and person-
searching services.
Statistical analysis
Data analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software
version 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). The data
are shown as mean ± Standard deviation for continuous variables,
median (minimum–maximum) for ordinal ones, and frequency
with percent for categorical ones. Means were compared with using
Student’s t test. Categorical comparisons were made using chi-
square test, where appropriate. P value less than 0.05 was considered
statistically significant.
Results
The mean age of the patients was 51.4 (31-78) years in Group
A and 54.4 (28-81) years in Group B. There was no statistically
significant difference between groups in terms of age (p = 0.362).
There were 38 (76%) females and 12 (24%) males in Group A, and 35
(70%) females and 15 (30%) males in Group B (p = 0.055).
There was difference between groups in terms of laterality (p =
0.01). The mean follow-up was not significantly different between two
groups 17.5 (SD 1.4) months in Group A and 18.9 (SD 2.0) months
in Group B (p = 0.062). Intraoperative complications such as nerve or
vessel injury were not observed in each group. In one diabetic patient
superficial wound infection that healed with oral antibiotic adminis
tration was observed in group B.
Preoperatively, 47 (51%) patients in Group A and 45 (90%)
patients in Group B complained of night pain. Postoperatively, there
was not a significantly difference between groups in night pain. It was
detected nine (18%) hands in Group A eight (16%) hands in Group
B (p = 0.357). The night pain complaint was not significantly reduced
after CTR in both groups (p>0.21 for both).
There was significantly different on the average time of surgery.
It was 17.9 (SD 2.1) minute in group A and 14.8 (SD 1.7) minute in
group B (P: 0.01). Also the average discharge time from hospital was
significantly different. The time was 22.4 (SD 1.9) hours in group A
and 3.6 (SD 0.9) in group B (P: 0.01). At final follow-up there were
no recurrences or new surgical exploration. Average time to return
to daily life activities and work were 10.8 (SD 1.5) and 11.2 (SD 1.3)
days, there was no statistically significant difference between groups
A and B in term of return to daily activity (P: 0.173).
Average time of surgery was significantly different between two
groups. The average time of surgery was 17.9 (SD 2.1) minute in group
A and 14.8 (SD 1.7) minute in group B (P: 0.01). At final follow-up
there were no recurrences or new surgical exploration. Average time
to return to daily life activities and work were 10.8 and 11.2 days,
there was no statistically significant difference between groups A and
B (P:0.173).
A total of 6 patients (12%) were diabetic in group A, whereas
5 (10%) were diabetic in group B (p: 0.09). Retrospectively EMG
Figure 1: Figure showing patient inclusion criteria of the study.
GROUP A GENERAL
ANAESTHESIA
GROUP B LOCAL
ANAESTHESIA
Number of participants 50 50
MEN 12 15
WOMEN 38 35
Number of hands 50 50
RIGHT 37 36
LEFT 13 14
Hand involved: dominant/
non dominant
35/15 38/12
Diabetes 6 5
Mean Age 51.4 (31-78) 54.4 (28-81)
Mean Follow up (months) 17.5 18.9
Smoking Status 9 9
EMG results moderate/
severe
21/29 24/26
Table 1: Table showing demographic data of patients included in this study.

results were similar between group A and B. In group A 21 patient
was moderate and 29 patients was severe whereas 24 patients were
moderate and 26 patients was severe (P: 0.500) (Table 1).
Preoperatively, the mean VAS score was 7,9 (SD 1.2) in Group A
and significantly decreased to 2.7 (SD1.7) (p = 0.01) also at the Group
B the mean VAS score significantly decreased 8,0 (SD 1.9) to 2.9 (SD
1.1) (p = 0.01) (Figure 2). Between the groups the postoperative VAS
score was not significantly different (p = 0.112) also VAPSS score was
not significantly different (p = 0.158) (Figure 3).
Discussion
The most commonly performed surgical technique in the
treatment of CTS is relieving the median nerve via cutting the
transverse carpal ligament. Sufficient release of the carpal ligament
is essential, and there could be possible anatomic variations.
Postoperative complications, including excessive scar tissue, injury
to the palmar motor branch of the median nerve, and unsatisfactory
release, may result in an increase in the patient’s complaints [17,18].
In the present study, we did not encounter such problems in either
study group.
The learning curve of the surgical methods must be taken into
consideration when evaluating results and outcome. CTS surgery
requires proper training and experience before proficiency is reached
[19,20]. In experienced or careless hands, the outcomes for all
techniques may be similar and have low morbidity [20,21]. In our
study there was no surgical learning curve and all surgical procedures
made by experienced senior author (BS).
El Maraghy and Devereauux conducted a survey of orthopaedic
and plastic surgeons in Ontario, Canada, to identify variations in the
choice of surgical setting and anaesthesia when treating CTS [22].
Surveys were delivered to 606 orthopaedic and plastic surgeons; 75%
responded to the questionnaire. The authors found that orthopaedic
surgeons used the formal operating room for all CTR surgeries
significantly more than plastic surgeons. Also in the selection of
anaesthesia method there were significant differences between the
two specialties. Orthopaedists used regional or GA more compared
to plastic surgeons. In our Serie 68 operations were made with GA
and 73 with LA but all in operating room.
In a published literature antibiotic using rate was found 46.7%
around orthopaedic surgeons before the surgical procedure [23]. In
our study we had a standard procedure for using antibiotics. Our low
infection rate could be related with this.
GA could have more comorbidities rather than LA including
respiratory problems [24]. In our study comorbidities due to GA was
very low. This could be related with short surgical procedure time.
Discharge time from the surgery is important for the patients.
Faster discharge from the hospital will decrease the hospital costs
and will increase the patient satisfaction. In our study GA group has
a significant longer discharge time after surgery. In addition, cost is
lowered further because preoperative screening tests (blood tests,
chest X-rays and electrocardiographs) are not required within LA
[25]. Also local regulations do not require an anaesthesia nurse or
doctor for its use, economically LA is probably more cost effective
than GA. Despite these factors, there is a role for GA in extremely
anxious patients, or when additional supple-mental procedures
are anticipated or planned. This study shows that both methods of
anaesthesia are well tolerated and are of value to the hand surgeon.
An important limitation of this research was to be a retrospective
study. The retrospective character of the study implies that in
some patients the operation was done several years before the
questionnaire was completed, which could potentially affect
the outcome. However, as the period of time between CTR and
answering of the questionnaire was relatively similar between the two
groups of patients. Also that study had potential limitation: reported
complications were in-hospital. Another important limitation is: it
was not a randomized controlled trial, despite statistical corrections;
unaccounted (unobserved) factors could have biased treatment
exposure (to regional or general anaesthesia).
Conclusion
All patients had a significant resolution of CTS symptoms at
the final follow up, as assessed by the VAS and VAPSS. The main
objective of this study was to compare the results of CTR under
GA and LA. A high percentage of patients reported high levels of
satisfaction, excellent results and improvements in their quality of life
in both group. As the VAS and VAPSS were considered the primary
outcome measure, the results of our study show that the type of
anaesthesia has no effect on the results of surgical treatment of CTS.
Further prospective, controlled, high-powered, and randomized
Figure 2: Figure showing preoperative and postoperative visual analogue
score of group A and group B.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
GROUP A GROUP B
VAPSS
VAPSS
Figure 3: Figure showing visual analogue patients satisfaction score of group
A and group B.

studies comparing these two treatment options need to be performed
to determine the differences in patient outcomes.
References
1. Phalen GS. The carpal-tunnel syndrome. Seventeen years’ experience in
diagnosis and treatment of six hundred fifty-four hands. J Bone Joint Surg
Am. 1966; 48: 211–228.
2. Paget J. Lectures on surgical pathology. Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston;
1854.
3. Phalen GS, Gardner WJ, La Londe AA. Neuropathy of the median nerve due
to compression beneath the transverse carpal ligament. J Bone Joint Surg.
1950; 32: 109–112.
4. Phalen GS, Kendrick JI. Compression neuropathy of the median nerve in the
carpal tunnel. J Am Med Assoc. 1957; 164: 524–530.
5. Geoghegan J, Clark D, Bainbridge L, Smith C, Hubbard R. Risk factors in
carpal tunnel syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery. 2004; 29: 315–320.
6. J. E. Farmer and T. R. Davis. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Case–Control
Study Evaluating Its Relationship with Body Mass Index and Hand and Wrist
Measurements. J Hand Surg Eur Vol, 2008; 4: 445-448.
7. Weiss APC, Sachar K, Gendreau M. Conservative management of carpal
tunnel syndrome: a re-examination of steroid injection and splinting. The
Journal of Hand Surgery, 1994; 19: 410–415
8. Racasan O, Dubert T. The safest location for steroid injection in the treatment
of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Br. 2005; 30: 412-414.
9. Huisstede BM, Randsdorp MS, Coert JH, Glerum S, van Middelkoop M, Koes
BW. Carpal tunnel syndrome. Part II: effectiveness of surgical treatments – a
systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 1005-1024.
10. Atroshi I, Hofer M, Larsson GU, Ornstein E, Johnsson R, Ranstam J. Open
compared with 2-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release: a 5-year follow-up
of a randomized controlled trial. J Hand Surg Am. 2009; 34: 266–272.
11. Brown RA, Gelberman RH, Seiler JG 3rd, Abrahamsson SO, Weiland
AJ, Urbaniak JR, et al. Carpal tunnel release. A prospective, randomized
assessment of open and endoscopic methods. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;
75: 1265–1275.
12. Buch-Jaeger N, Foucher G. Correlation of clinical signs with nerve conduction
tests in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Br. 1994; 19:
720–724.
13. Katz RD, La Porte DM. Use of short-acting local anesthetics in hand surgery
patients. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2009; 34: 1902–1905.
14. Koay J, Orengo I. Application of local anesthetics in dermatologic surgery.
Dermatol Surg. 2002; 28: 143–148.
15. Koegst WH, Wolfle O, Thoele K, Sauerbier M. The “Wide Awake Approach”
in hand surgery: a comfortable anaesthesia method without a tourniquet.
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2011; 43: 175–180.
16. Pollock H, Forman S, Pollock T, Raccasi M. Conscious sedation/local
anesthesia in the office-based surgical and procedural facility. Clin Plast
Surg. 2013; 40: 383–388.
17. Benson LS, Bare AA, Nagle DJ, Harder VS, Williams CS, Visotsky JL.
Complications of endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release. Arthroscopy.
2006; 22: 919-924.
18. Palmer AK1, Toivonen DA. Complications of endoscopic and open carpal
tunnel release. J Hand Surg Am. 1999; 24: 561-565.
19. Litin SC, Prickman JL. Carpal tunnel syndrome. Mayo Clin Updat. 1993; 9:
1–2.
20. Matthias Vanhees, Francis Van Glabbeek, Peter C. Amadio. Carpal Tunnel
Syndrome etiology update: where do we stand? Acta Orthop Belg. 2014; 80:
331-335.
21. Rab M, Grunbeck M, Beck H, Haslik W, Schrögendorfer KF, Schiefer HP,
et al. Intra-individual comparison between open and 2-portal endoscopic
release in clinically matched bilateral carpal syndrome. J Plast Reconstr
Aesthet Surg. 2006; 59: 730–736.
22. ElMaraghy A, Devereaux MW. Variability in the surgical management of
carpal tunnel syndrome: implications for the effective use of healthcare
resources. Healthc Q. 2009; 12: 85–91.
23. Shin EK, Bachoura A, Jacoby SM, Chen NC, Osterman AL. Treatment of
carpal tunnel syndrome by members of the American Association for Hand
Surgery. Hand (N Y). 2012; 7: 351-356.
24. Kawashima Y1, Takahashi S, Suzuki M, Morita K, Irita K, Iwao Y. et al.
Anesthesia-related mortality and morbidity over a 5-year period in 2,363,038
patients in Japan. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2003; 47: 809-817.
25. Derkash Rs, Weaver JK, Berkeley ME, Dawson D. Open carpal tunnel release
with wrist block and wrist tourniquet. Orthopaedics 1996; 19: 589-590.
Citation: Karaca S, Akpolat AO, Oztermeli A, Bildik C, Erdem MN and Saygi B. Comparison of Local versus
General Anaesthesia for Carpal Tunnel Release. Austin J Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 4(2): 1043.
Austin J Musculoskelet Disord - Volume 4 Issue 2 - 2017
ISSN : 2381-8948 | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
Karaca et al. © All rights are reserved

Austin Journal of Musculoskeletal Disorders

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Austin Journal of Musculoskeletal Disorders

Similar to Austin Journal of Musculoskeletal Disorders (20)

More from Austin Publishing Group

More from Austin Publishing Group (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Austin Journal of Musculoskeletal Disorders